External fixation about the elbow: Indications and long-term outcomes

• Published in: Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma Vol. 48; p. 102335
• Main Authors: Deemer, Alexa R., Solasz, Sara, Ganta, Abhishek, Egol, Kenneth A., Konda, Sanjit R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Elsevier B.V 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Elbow fracture; External fixation; Outcomes; Trauma; Upper extremity; External fixation; Upper extremity; Trauma; Outcomes; Elbow fracture
• ISSN: 0976-5662; 2213-3445
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102335

Operative management is often required for fractures of the elbow, with treatment goals aiming to restore stability, reduction, and early range of motion. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator, and to compare range of motion and functional outcomes between patients who required an elbow external fixator to those who did not. We hypothesize that patients who require an external fixator will have worse elbow range of motion and functional outcomes when compared to those who did not. This is a retrospective study of 391 patients who presented at a Level-I trauma center between March 2011 and January 2021 for operative management of a fracture/fracture-dislocation of the distal humerus (AO/OTA 13A-C) and/or proximal ulna and/or radius (AO/OTA 21A-C). A primary analysis was performed to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator. A secondary analysis was performed comparing elbow range-of-motion and functional outcomes between cases and controls. 391 patients were identified; 26 required external fixation (cases) and 365 did not (controls). Significant risk factors for necessitating placement of an external fixator included large BMI (OR = 1.087, 95 % CI = 1.007–1.173, p = 0.033), elbow dislocation (OR = 7.549, 95 % CI = 2.387–23.870, p = 0.001), open wound status (OR = 9.584, 95 % CI = 2.794–32.878, p < 0.001), and additional non-contiguous orthopaedic injury (OR = 9.225, 95 % CI = 2.219–38.360, p = 0.002). Elbow ROM was poorer in the external fixator group with regards to extension (−15°), flexion (+19.4°), and pronation (+14.3°) (p < 0.05). In addition, those who did not need external fixation had better functional scores (+20.4 points MEPI) (p < 0.05). The use of external fixation about the elbow is associated with significantly worse initial injuries and results in poorer outcomes. These results can be used to inform the surgeon-patient discussion regarding treatment options and expected functional outcomes. III.